Minnesota: Castle Doctrine hearing Mar. 13th at 12:30PM

Time to get involved - see email sent out below (quoted), and if you can, show up at the state capitol - Thursday March 13th at 12:30 PM with your support sign. The author of this bill needs a show of support to get this bill moving.

Friends, neighbors,

A hearing on the "castle doctrine" bill is scheduled at the state capitol this Thursday March 13th at 12:30 pm - Room 10 of the State Office Building, the big brick building across from the State Capitol. Many other states have already adopted this legislation because they understood the need and usefulness of giving law abiding citizens the right to defend themselves against violent criminals. Representative Tony Cornish, author of the bill, says he needs some citizens to attend this hearing so there is a show of support. Those who oppose it are going to be there showing their opposition.

We are coordinating a caravan to the capitol to show support. If you can make it please email me and let's make use of the car pooling lanes we've paid so much for.

Here is a link to the house file: http://wdoc.house.leg.state.mn.us/leg/LS85/HF0498.0.pdf

Sometimes called the "Shoot First" bill, this legislation is opposed by people who are afraid to have citizens defending themselves. They mistakenly think that it will turn our cities and state into the wild west - just as they thought the Minnesota Personal Protection Act (permit to carry a pistol) would. The fact is, nothing like that has or will happen. Law abiding citizens are least likely to use violence, and in cases where they could, it means that a criminal is about to do "substantial bodily harm"! As it stands, before a citizen can use lethal force they must determine that their life is in jeopardy or that they risk "great bodily harm" - as opposed to "substantial bodily harm"... you tell me the difference?

Existing laws don't protect the citizen from being arrested, hauled off in handcuffs, and booked for a crime (like discharge of a firearm in city limits...). The new law requires an initial investigation to determine if the citizen was acting in self defense before the citizen is arrested. Existing laws do nothing to protect citizens from civil litigation by the perpetrator or their family, and most unjust, from prosecution by a District Attorney without just cause. In any event, as it stands, a citizen is required to hire an attorney and defend themselves from the outset, leaving their ultimate fate in the hands of a jury who may or may not understand the logistics of a violent encounter - the split second decisions, the distance a person can travel in under 2 seconds, and the harrowing fear that grips most people when they are in such a situation (all brought on by a violent criminal who doesn't care about your life or well being).

Despite some 20,000 gun laws in the United States, mostly at the state and local levels, there is little evidence that any but the most weakly motivated citizens have been discouraged from gun ownership. And there is no evidence that these gun control laws have made a dent in the crime rate.

Over the years, police and other experts have changed their recommendations about how to deal with criminals. In the early and middle 1970s, they advised cooperating with robbers and rapists to minimize chances of personal injury. Today, some who gave that advice tacitly admit that it was misguided. They now urge resistance in selected instances, especially for rape victims. Studies show that robbery and rape victims who resist with a gun are only half as likely to suffer injuries as those who put up no defense.

I urge you to get involved in this process. If you can't make the hearing, please notify the legislators below via email or telephone to support this bill and get it approved by the house and senate so we can protect ourselves wherever we may be.

SEND THIS EMAIL TO ALL YOUR FRIENDS AND NEIGHBORS SO THEY CAN CHIME IN!

If you can, please get involved by calling or emailing some of the DFL'ers with a request to get on board. Keep it positive and point out that we who deserve this protection are not violent offenders. Violent offenders also don't have permits to carry, and we don't have a rap sheet. This is to PROTECT our rights to defend ourselves from those who don't care about laws.

From a friend who knows the system:

Your bill is at the very bottom of the list so it will definitely not be at 12:30pm sharp. Depending on how many people show up to argue and testify for the previous bills, it could be much later and apparently, in a different room in the same building. If there are a lot of people expected to show up, there is very limited seating so if you want to sit or even get in to the room, it may be a good idea to get there early although if they switch the room, it is first come first serve. If you are not testifying and there are no identifying characteristics of your supporters, there is no way for the committee to know who is there for which side except when you cheer and boo the testifiers. The chairman might get a little annoyed but they are only one vote and they give numerous warnings. There are 19 members of this committee and the bill has 8 co-authors on the committee (7 GOP, 1 DFL) so you need to only convince 2 more to get it through committee which is the good news, the bad news is that you already have the support of every Republican on the committee so that leaves no rational thinkers left and the one DFL on your side is in his first term and thus has no power so you will need some luck. You should be focusing on the remaining DFL members on the committee and finding people in their district to call on behalf of the bill (I listed them below, the ones with a star you have as co-authors). Not having the support of the chairman can be sort of rough as they decide how long people testify and make the rules. This especially sucks because it is the end of their day and they want to leave.